Preview:

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS WASHINGTON, SC. FILED: JULY 26, 2012 SUPERIOR COURT

JAMES LAURENT V. ST. MICHAEL'S COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL

: : : : : :

C.A. No.: 09-0545

DECISION STERN, J. Before the Court is Defendant St. Michael`s Country Day School`s (Defendant or St. Michael`s) Super. R. Civ. P. 56 Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I, Count II, and Count III of a complaint filed against it by the Plaintiff James Laurent (Plaintiff or Laurent).1 Plaintiff`s underlying lawsuit arises out of a termination of Plaintiff`s employment contract by Defendant. Defendant filed the instant motion on Feb. 3, 2012. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the instant motion and a subsequent supplemental memorandum. I Facts and Travel Plaintiff`s underlying lawsuit arises out of a termination of Plaintiff`s employment contract by Defendant. (Pl.`s Compl.) St. Michael`s is a private educational institution located in Newport, Rhode Island. St. Michael`s offers classes for prekindergarten through middle school. Defendant does not engage in a collective bargaining agreement with its employees; rather Defendant sends an Offer of Employment for the upcoming year to the individuals the

1

Count I-Breach of contract; Count II-Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; Count IIIPromissory Estoppel.

Defendant wishes to hire for the following year. Mr. Laurent was employed by St. Michael`s as a history teacher for twelve years, including the 2008-2009 academic year. Toward the end of the 2008-2009 academic year, Mr. Laurent received a document titled OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PROJECTION (Offer). (Pl.`s Ex. A.) The Offer was signed by Mr. Whitney Slade (Mr. Slade) in his capacity as the Head of the School and dated May 6, 2009. The Offer was consequently signed by Laurent on May 7, 2009. The terms of the Offer included the position offered to Laurent, the base salary as $46,715; the daily rate of $225.68; and benefits. Below the parties` signatures, the Offer also included the following disclaimer: This is not a contract. All employment at St. Michael`s Country Day School is strictly on at will basis. This offer of employment can be withdrawn at the discretion of the Head of School. (Pl.`s Ex. A.) Undisputed by both parties is that on June 8, 2009, Plaintiff got into an argument (Incident) with Ms. Lauren Abraham (Ms. Abraham). Ms. Abraham is the Head of St. Michael`s Lower School and is also a direct supervisor of Laurent`s daughter-in-law, who was a teacher at the Lower School. Allegedly, a few days prior to June 8, 2009, after consultation with Abraham, Laurent`s daughter-in-law was advised that she would probably not be rehired for the upcoming 2009-2010 academic year. It is undisputed that the Incident led to Defendant`s decision to terminate Laurent`s employment. The decision to terminate Laurent was made at a subsequent meeting conducted by the Head of the School and his managing team. Laurent was not present at the meeting. In order to avoid a potentially hostile environment created by Laurent, Defendant decided to terminate Laurent`s employment. At the meeting, it was decided that the Defendant would inform Laurent of his termination after St. Michael`s graduation. Thus, on June 10, 2009, Mr. Slade advised the

2

Plaintiff that his employment for the academic year 2009-2010 had been terminated, effective immediately. On August 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on three counts: Count I-Breach of contract; Count II-Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; Count IIIPromissory Estoppel. On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint to add following counts: Count IV-Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Count V-Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Count VI-Libel, Slander and Defamation; Count VII-Spoilation; and Count VIII-Punitive Damages. II Standard of Review Summary judgment is an extreme and drastic remedy that should be applied cautiously. Golderese v. Suburban Land Co., 590 A.2d 395, 396 (R.I. 1991) (quotation omitted). Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact is evident from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, and the motion justice finds that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Smiler v. Napolitano, 911 A.2d 1035, 1038 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Rule 56(c)). On considering a motion for summary judgment, this Court reviews the evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666, 669 (R.I. 2004). The party opposing summary judgment bears the burden of proving, by competent evidence, the existence of facts in dispute. Lynch v. Spirit Rent

Download 09-0545.pdf

Rhode Island Law